Interesting article on Pseudo(neo)conservatism by a conseverative

[IllegalArgument]

I found this be an very interesting read:

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c507.htm

Quote:
A good friend and long-time Republican put it this way: "Your average enthusiastic movement conservative is basically so adolescent and emotionally fragile that he does not see political activity as a contest of principles. He needs a white knight who comes riding in on a horse in order to redeem America."

 

[daenku32]

It is quite interesting. I enjoyed it.


You do have to wonder where Ann Coulter get's all that stuff from.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Great article. Dang, I couldn't have (ever) said it better myself.

I had to look the definition to "hebephrenic" as in "hebephrenic Ann Coulter'. Webster-Merriam must of been thinking of her!

I have to keep it handy for reference.

Charlie (Pseudoconservativism is among other things a disorder in relation to authority ... Richard Hofstadter 1965) Monoxide

 

[Frank Newgent]

I found this be an very interesting read:

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c507.htm

In theory the citizens of a constitutional republic ought to soberly inform themselves, e.g., whether Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction; what is Al Qaeda and where did it come from; how did the most the most massive intelligence failure in the nation's history take place, followed barely a year later by yet another significant intelligence failure? That driving curiosity, worthy of Inspector Javert, which impelled pseudoconservatives to construct elaborate theories about the death of Vince Foster or precisely what President Clinton did with a cigar, is strangely absent when the stakes are higher. This incuriosity extends not merely to the average reader of National Review, but to pseudoconservative elected officials with the power to compel answers.

Policy? Politics? To this administration there seems to be no difference.

 

[Nikk]

Great article and an urbane style. Thanks for the link.

 

[American]

He almost had me until:

"The presumably ghost-written rehashes by the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and O'Reillys do not attempt sustained intellectual argumentation at all; they merely strike an attitude: belligerent, faux-populist, self-righteous."

And what makes you any different, Mr. Werther?

Not to mention he misuses the term "Neoconservative", which has always meant "old-school democrat turned republican". That's a very amateur mistake. Quite glaring.

His main points revolve around a truth that he encircles and dances around in every argument, but misses completely in the end. And that is- every political party or movement is composed of moderates and "true believers", the latter thinking they are entitled to waste an entire movement on a single (losing) issue. Example- now that conservativism has grown, suddenly abortion/porn/Jesus/etc are all big issues again. And for that, the conservative movement will pay a big price. They will probably throw away everything they have achieved in the last 4 years, just to make a point and push those issues they KNOW they are going to lose. People want choice, they want sex, and they don't want God saturating their daily lives. Maybe once a week, tops, for the average American who goes to church, but no more than that.

In conclusion, his essay is a good intellectual exercise for which I'd give him an A in a philosophy class, but his presumptions and therefore the conclusions that follow are completely idiotic. Perhaps even agenda-driven, I suspect.

 

[bignickel]

Not to mention he misuses the term "Neoconservative", which has always meant "old-school democrat turned republican". That's a very amateur mistake. Quite glaring.

Almost as bad as accusing Elton John of plagarizing REO Speedwagon.


PS Have you hugged your dad recently? Doesn't he deserve a hug from his son?

 

[Frank Newgent]

His main points revolve around a truth that he encircles and dances around in every argument, but misses completely in the end

Are you sure about this ? Would a lack of scientific certainty undermine your critique?